National Republican., 1887-08-02
A National Question,


On the 18th OF July the NATIONAL Re-
PUBLICAN published an extract from the
opinion Of the Supreme Court Of the United
States In the case Of Brown VS.. State OF
Mary land t12 Wharton, ~, In 1872, show
ing that the state could not prohibit the sale
Of any imported article while It remained
in the original package. Chief Justice Mar
shall delivered that opinion aud Roger
Taney represented the state Of MARYLAND
before the court.
Suits were brought before the Supreme
Court and decided in 1S47, Mr.. Taney then
being chief justice, against the states Of
Massachusetts,, Rhode Island, and New
Hampshire involving the right OF the state
to prohibit the sales Of imported liauors In
original imported packages.
These suits were all tried together, as the
same principles were at stake in each. They
are known as "The license cases." and are
reported 9th Howard, page 504. Daniel
Webster and Rufus Choate were the at
torneys representing Thurlow, the party
suing Massachusetts,, and the court was com
posed of Roger B. fancy, John Mclean,
James NJ. Wayne, John Catron, John Nc
Kinley, Peter V. Daniel, Samuel Nelson,
Levi Woodbury., and Robert G.. Grier.
These gentlemen stand as high as any OF
the judges Of the country as lawyers, and in
politics all but two Of them were Democrats.
These cases were eXhaustiyely discussed
and elaborate opinions delivered by Chief
Justice Taney, Justices Mclean, Daniel,
Catron, and Woodbury., and all Of these
Judges were politically in favor OF the
broadest definition OF the rights Of the states.
From the opinion delivered by Chief JUS
tice Taney, found on pag, 573, We extract
the following:
Each of the cases has arisen upon state laws
passed for the purpose of discourtging the use
of ardent spirits within their raspecty! terri.
tories by prohibiting their sale in small gum.
tities and without licenses previously obtIiued
fro m the state authorities. The quas'
t!on is how far o state may regulate or prohibit
the sale of arlent spirits the importation Of
which from foreign countries has been author
lied by Congress. Is such a law regulation
Of foreign commerce, or OF the internal traiiio
Of the state? This question came
directly before the court for the first time in
the case OF Brown VS.. the state of Marylari,
i2Nheaton, ii9. And the cou;t there held
that an article authorized by a law of Cju-
press to be imported continued TO be n part Of
the foreign commerce of the country while L.
r, muined In the hands OF the Importer for
sale, In the original bale, package. or vessel In
which 1t was imported: that the authority
given to import necessarily carried with 1t the
right TO sell the imported article in the form
aid shape in which 1t was imported;
buttbat when the original package was broken
up for use or for retail by the importer, au1
also when the commodity had passed from his
HANDS into the hands of purchaser, 1t ceased
TO be an import, or part of foreign commerce,
and became subject to the laws of the state,
and might be taxed for state purposes, and the
sale regulated by the state like any other
property. argued the case In be-
half of the state and certainly | at
that time persuaded myself that was right,
ard thought that the decision of the court re-
sricted the powers Of the state more than a
sound construction of the constitution of tho
United States would warrant. But further
and more mature reflection has convinced me
that the rule laid down by the Supreme Court
is just ana safe one, and perhaps the best that
could have been adopted for preserving the
right of the United States on the one hand and
of the states on the other, and preventing co.
lision between them. Indeed goods
imported, while they remain In the hands of
the importer, In the form aud SHAPE Ia which
they were brought into this country, can in no
just sense be regarded as part OF that mass O.!
property In the state usually taxed for the su ,.
port of the state government. The immense
amount of foreign products used and cousum ed
in this country are imported, landed, aud OF.
fered for sale in few commercial cities aud \
very small portion ofthem are Intended or ex'
| pectCd to be used in the state IN which they
are imported. Agreat (perhaps the greater) part
| imported, in some OF the cities Is not Owned
| or brought In by citizens OF the state, but By
| citizens of other states or by foreigners
| Adopting, therefore, the rule as laid down In
| Brown Vs. State of Maryland, l proceed 10 ap-
| ply 1t to the cases Of Massachusetts, and Rho io
| Island. The laws OF Congress regulating for
tign commerce authorize the importation OF
| spirits, distilled liquors, and brandy in clsks
or vessels not containing less than n certain
| quantity, specified in the laws upon this sub,
ject. NOtC, u he state iGTs IN question cIRlc N
collision tcih MOso acts Of Congress and prsrcat9i
or ObS'rHcted The importation or safe Qf these drti
cl6S by he importer IN MG original cdk or peSys N
| tChich heg trere imported, II WObkiJe he du'y ot
| tbs court 10 declare N m u0id
| 1t has, indeed, been suggested that II a stat
deems the traffic in ardent splr It's to bo iniurl
Gus to its citizens, aud calculated to introduce
immortality, vice, and pauporism In tho state,
It may constitutionally refuse to permit its ims
| portaton, Notwithstanding the laws OF Con
| gress; and that state may refuse 10 do this on
| the same principle that II may resist and pre-.
| vent the Introduction of disease, pestilonce, or
paupo rism from abroad, But II mus be re-.
membered that disease, pestilenGe, and pau
perism are not subjects OF commerce, although
sometimes among its attendant evils.
They are not things to be regulated and traf
fcRed in, hut to be prevented as far as human
| foresight or human means can guard HgNins
| thtm. Hut spirits and distilled liquors are
universally admitted to be subjects of owner
shin and property, and are therefore subjects
OF exchange, barter and tratlic, like any other
| ocmmodity IN which n right of property exists
| And Congress, under It's general power to reg
ulate commerce with foreign nations, may
| prescribe what article OF merchandise may be
admitted and what excluded and may there
fore admit or not as II shall deem best the inn